Explodo:And people wonder why ranchers attempted to prevent the wolves from being reintroduced. That's a significant financial hit.

How do they know it was wolves and not feral dogs, which are more likely to attack and kill just for the hell of it? And even if it were wolves, when you move in on a predator's natural habitat and either kill or run off it's natural prey, what do you think is going to happen?

You really don't know what you are talking about."We knew the presence of wolves caused lower calf-cow ratios, but we didn't know why," he [Scott Creek, Ecology Professor at Montana State University] said. "Radiocollaring calves revealed that calf numbers were low immediately after the birth pulse, suggesting that a decline in the birth rate was part of the population decline."

Wisdomsage:why are your numbers like that, in the 'too many sheep killed to be eaten' list you provided; most of them end in the teens, with a few hitting higher and lower... then one that has over a hundred sheep killed. What were the circumstances that lead to such a discrepency between that kill and the others you provided? Was it another strangulation?

Those are just the events where over 10 sheep were killed during one time. There are many more where 1, 2, 5, 8 or so were also killed. I just pointed out these nubers to support the fact that wolves will surplus kill from time to time. Regarding your second question, this is the first event that I know of where the sheep were killed during the resulting stampeed. I am pretty sure that all of the other events I listed upthread were due to direct wolf attacks. I know that the 120 sheep killed in Dillon, Montana was.

Wisdomsage:with that many carcasses they wouldn't waste their time killing more, risking injury to procure food that is already plentiful.

No, wolves will surplus kill on occasion. They will also kill just to kill. I have seen several carcasses where they have killed an elk or deer and outside of the killing wounds, there is not another mark on the carcass. This usually happens in the winter when the wolves are the strongest and the deer/elk are the weakest.

Wisdomsage:none of this changes the fact that two wolves shouldn't be able to kill so many in the first place - TWO WOLVES. That is woeful incompetence by the owners of the sheep, a PACK of wolves, sure, ya, that's not really something so easy to manage at 1 am, but you suck as an anything if you let two wolves - TWO - kill 5% of your flock.

It was not woeful incompetence of the owners, it was just sheep being sheep. When you are on open range like this, you cannot prevent sheep from stampeeding themselves to death. Yes is it unfortunate for the owner, but it really does not reflect on them. When you own animals that are dumb as a box of rocks, this kind of crap sometimes happens. It is a risk you take in ranching.

ficklefkrfark:I hope our country will eventually come to its senses and start finding common ground again.

For the most part, the wolf issue had leveled out some with the state now having management and the hunging seasons are starting to have an impact on curbing wolf populations. In addition, the hunting is pushing them back into the mountains further and has reduced livestock predation in many areas. Wolves are not dumb and once they get shot at, they tend to stay away.

One of the greatest impacts that I see where I live is that more calf elk and fawn deer are living through the winters. During this time of the year most of the big game herds move down out of the mountains into the farmers fields and lowland areas. With the hunting season extending to March 31st, many hunters set up thier 'wolf' patrol' close to where the big game herds are wintering. This has afforded them some additional protection they did not have back when wolves were listed under the Endangered Species Act. This has appeared to really help the cow:calf and doe:fawn ratios in the last couple of years.

I think that if these trends continue, this issue will be pretty much settled, with a few on the fringes (both on the enviro side and on the kill em all side) still throwing a fit.

doglover:Rams don't run from wolves. They're called rams, like the verb, because they farking ram things. They're basically a short temper on legs.

Heh, I did not see this 'gem O' knowledge' earlier. So you think that rams would have made the difference here? Have you ever been on a farm even once in your life?

Want to know something? The night in Dillion, Montana where about 120 sheep were killed in one night? Yeah, they were all purebred Rambouillet rams. They ran from wolves. They were killed by the dozen. Not sure where you are pulling these dumb arguemnts from. Oh, wait, yes I do - your butt.

HeadLever:doglover: Rams don't run from wolves. They're called rams, like the verb, because they farking ram things. They're basically a short temper on legs.

Heh, I did not see this 'gem O' knowledge' earlier. So you think that rams would have made the difference here? Have you ever been on a farm even once in your life?

Want to know something? The night in Dillion, Montana where about 120 sheep were killed in one night? Yeah, they were all purebred Rambouillet rams. They ran from wolves. They were killed by the dozen. Not sure where you are pulling these dumb arguemnts from. Oh, wait, yes I do - your butt.

Volcanic gas vents release gas and the herd animals die. A few hours later the wolves come around for the free meal. Happens Yellowstone often enough. Alfred the Hedgehog could have solved this one for them.

grimlock1972:Either way the owner of the flock must have been aware of the risks as it no secret wolves live in that area.

Yeah, they know the risks. However,this magnitude of loss is pretty much unprecidented. I pay attention to this type of stuff, and I have never seen so many sheep die at one time because of wolves. From the rancher standpoint, it all comes down to cost/magnitude of protection verses frequency/cost of predation.

You really don't know what you are talking about."We knew the presence of wolves caused lower calf-cow ratios, but we didn't know why," he [Scott Creek, Ecology Professor at Montana State University] said. "Radiocollaring calves revealed that calf numbers were low immediately after the birth pulse, suggesting that a decline in the birth rate was part of the population decline."

If by obnoxious you mean replying to posts with calm, reasonable replies, backed up with citations when applicable and not resorting to immature ranting and name calling, then yes, he's a real dickhead.

By the way, have you come up with that mysterious report that shows my earlier point to be 'nonsense and completely made up by people who don't have any facts to back up their hysterical hatred of wolves'?

Or did you just pull that argument out of your butt as well? Again, if it does exist (other than just in your mind), I would like to read it.

HeadLever:a particular individual: Is it just me, or is HeadLever flooding the board in a most obnoxious manner?

By the way, have you come up with that mysterious report that shows my earlier point to be 'nonsense and completely made up by people who don't have any facts to back up their hysterical hatred of wolves'?

Why, yes. Yes, I did. Here: (Although in my experience, fanatics like you will never, ever change their minds regardless of the information they're presented with. It's what makes you a fanatic.)

Low pregnancy rates in elk not due to wolves

Wolves are not responsible for low pregnancy rates in elk, according to a new study published today in the scientific journal Ecology Letters.

The research, led by recent University of Wyoming Phd graduate Arthur Middleton, shows that elk don't respond frequently enough to wolves to impact body fat and pregnancy rates. Wolves' impact on elk populations is limited to direct predation, not harassment or stress that leads to lower pregnancy rates or poor body composition. Middleton was studying the Clarks Fork elk herd near Cody when he and other scientists noticed the dramatically low pregnancy rate of the herd. The first year it was only 59 percent. The average of that year and the subsequent three years was about 70 percent. A normal pregnancy rate for Rocky Mountain Elk is about 90 percent, Middleton said. "That was very eye opening," Middleton said. "We knew we had something we needed to understand better." Middleton, along with the Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, a U.S. Geological Survey program housed at the University of Wyoming, wanted to know if the low pregnancy rate could be due to the wolves in the area.

HeadLever:a particular individual: Is it just me, or is HeadLever flooding the board in a most obnoxious manner?

By the way, have you come up with that mysterious report that shows my earlier point to be 'nonsense and completely made up by people who don't have any facts to back up their hysterical hatred of wolves'?

I especially like this part:

"Large predators, like grizzly bears and wolves, elicit emotional responses from people who are quick to attribute and blame changes on the animals. Studies like this, through the University of Wyoming, show what is really happening in the ecosystem. Kilpatrick said he was not surprised to learn the low pregnancy rates were not due to stress from wolves. Other animals, like moose, are also experiencing low pregnancy rates. It speaks to a larger issue about nutrition and drought, he said.

a particular individual:The research, led by recent University of Wyoming Phd graduate Arthur Middleton, shows that elk don't respond frequently enough to wolves to impact body fat and pregnancy rates. Wolves' impact on elk populations is limited to direct predation, not harassment or stress that leads to lower pregnancy rates or poor body composition. Middleton was studying the Clarks Fork elk herd near Cody when he and other scientists noticed the dramatically low pregnancy rate of the herd. The first year it was only 59 percent. The average of that year and the subsequent three years was about 70 percent. A normal pregnancy rate for Rocky Mountain Elk is about 90 percent, Middleton said. "That was very eye opening," Middleton said. "We knew we had something we needed to understand better." Middleton, along with the Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, a U.S. Geological Survey program housed at the University of Wyoming, wanted to know if the low pregnancy rate could be due to the wolves in the area.

See more at: http://wyofile.com/kelsey-dayton/low-pregnancy-rates-in-elk-not-due-t o -wolves/#sthash.DqVuD4tU.dpuf

Per your own link:This finding differs from some previous studies that indicated wolves influence elk behavior strongly enough to contribute to region-wide declines in calf production.

So basically, this study differs from others showing that it does impact pregancy rate.

Also per your link: The low pregnancy rates are most likely due to drought, but more research is needed, including a look at a more regional scale, Middleton said.

So this link does suggest that lower pregancy rages are not due to wolves, but it only looked at one isolated elk herd which is why they say they need more research. So in this regard you would be correct for one herd. However, you cannot say that this applies to all elk in the west until said more research is done.

Oh, and I forgot to add that nowhere in this study did they point to a contrary position to be 'nonsense and completely made up by people who don't have any facts to back up their hysterical hatred of wolves' .In fact they point to contrary studies simply conflicting studies. Nothing about made up facts or hysterical hatred.

"Large predators, like grizzly bears and wolves, elicit emotional responses from people who are quick to attribute and blame changes on the animals.

Yeah, I have seen this angle as well. It is just as annoying as those that stick their head in the sand and can't acknowledge under any circumstance that wolves do have an impact on big game herds and livestock.

HeadLever:Also per your link: The low pregnancy rates are most likely due to drought, but more research is needed, including a look at a more regional scale, Middleton said.

Also, I would like to look at this drought assertion cited in the study a bit more. I am not too sold on this argument. Back in the early 90s were some of the biggest drought years on record here in the intermountain west and elk populations and Cow:Calf ratios were very high. During the 2000s, we had much more average rainfall (outside of 2001-2002 and 2005 anyway) but yet populations were falling and cow:calf ratios were very low.

"Large predators, like grizzly bears and wolves, elicit emotional responses from people who are quick to attribute and blame changes on the animals.

Yeah, I have seen this angle as well. It is just as annoying as those that stick their head in the sand and can't acknowledge under any circumstance that wolves do have an impact on big game herds and livestock.

As I predicted, your fanatical hatred of wolves blinds you to all information contrary to your prejudices. You don't care about facts; you just redefine your terms so you can continue to be comfortable in your hatred. Thank you for conforming to my prejudices. I will now feel comfortable in my hatred for you and your arrogant, self-righteous ignorance.

HeadLever:When you are on open range like this, you cannot prevent sheep from stampeeding themselves to death. . . . When you own animals that are dumb as a box of rocks, this kind of crap sometimes happens.